Ginsburg: Abortion for Undesirable Populations

I am always amazed that the pro-abortion types don't slip up and tell the truth more often. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just did. In an interview with the New York Times on Sotomayor Ginsburg opined that what she originally thought (read hoped) that Roe would result in Medicaid funded abortion.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

That is right. A sitting Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States just lamented that Roe did not mandate funding of abortion through medicaid in order to reduce "populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

Now can anyone point out any one particular population that is impacted by medicaid funded abortions? A population that we don't want too many of?

A sitting Supreme Court Justice just lamented that Roe did force medicaid funding to control the number of undesirables in this country. From Margaret Sanger to Ginburg - the agenda of racist eugenics has not changed one bit. She should be impeached.

And it wasn’t until 1980, which is when the Supreme Court decided McRae, that Ginsburg realized it didn’t have anything to do with allowing the government a mechanism to practice eugenics.In that seven-year period, did Ginsburg use her considerable clout to argue against Roe, if that’s what she believed, or for that matter, against government funding of abortions? If not, shouldn’t we surmise from that silence that either (a) Ginsburg had few problems with government pushing a eugenics program, or (b) that she was willing to shrug off the eugenics in order to support Roe for the access to abortion?

Comments

Absolutely morally repugnant. So if Grandpa gets alzheimers, he's slated for termination? My friend's autistic child? Then again they don't seem to mind killing healthy full term babies. Who decides who "makes the cut?" May God have mercy on us all.

nothing that is morally repugnant, intellectually corrupt or thoroughly base can come as a suprise from Ginsburg's mouth and mind.That said this writer's eyebrow does raise slightly in considering that this is the view of our Jewish Justice.

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

I thought the purpose of the Supreme Court was to interpret the Constitution. It appears from her comments that they are interpreting what they believe to be the agenda of the government and basing decisions on "perceptions". And who is "we" as in "we don't want to have too many of"?

Well, who's the racist now? Isn't she (Ginsberg) the type that the Supreme Court rules against in cases against racism? Obviously, the ones that we don't want to have too much of are mostly "minorities," the poor, right? She is a joke, an embarassment, and a sad one at that because the joke is on us!

Whenever there is an interest and power to do wrong," wrote Madison to Jefferson in 1788, "wrong will generally be done......’’The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are Slaves -- James Madison, June 1785. In so many instances, fuelled by greed, avarice, and self-aggrandizement, American Elected and Appointed Servants have subverted the Principles of the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances.What happens in your great Nation ripples through out all free Nations - I am Irish and I admire your founding Father’s wisdom. Ireland also sees a continuous battle to protect the Unborn - at the moment many forces are tying to destroy the laws set up to protect the Unborn. To often Leaders in the Free world are Dismissive of the Voice of their elected and move in circles that boarders on secret agendas that have dire consequences for all life particularly the Unborn. The Constitutions of free elected peoples has become things of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they try to twist and shape into any form they please.God bless America and all its people from conception to the grave.

When I read this, I thought immediately of my spunky mother, who was born with a weak retina. At age 5 or so, she was kicked by a horse, and blinded in one eye. Over time, she slowly lost vision in the other eye. She was born on a rice farm, the youngest of 14 children. (What great FUN a large family was! We were never lonely with cousins and aunts and uncles visiting! Country vacations on the farm! My! We had fun!)

My mother never worked outside the home. There were 5 of us, and we savored my mom's gourmet Cajun cooking! Nothing like it anywhere on earth. She also had a very inquisitive mind, always "reading" through the "talking book" program or articles my dad read to her out of the newspaper. It was my mom who encouraged us to get an education, my mom who was always our support, my mom who always had the latest family news, or knew the latest of what was going on in the Church and the world, my mom who made everything fun.

My mom prayed three rosaries a day, and sometimes more. She prayed for us and for the whole family, for all her friends, for the country. She suffered a great deal. In her 70's she had her first stroke, and was partially paralyzed on her left side. This put her in a wheelchair, and she could no longer keep her hectic schedule of cleaning and cooking. But she became more spiritual than before. She had joy, despite her handicaps. She had more strokes and a heart attack and after about 9 or 10 years of the wheelchair, she became bedridden. She told me, "I don't want to die." Here is this woman - bedridden, paralyzed, blind, with many physical problems - and she still had a great zest for living, and we were happy to accommodate her. None of us wanted to lose our Mom. My father passed away before she did. He was 89, and she was 87 when she finally died. She suffered a great deal. But she still wanted to live. She gave freely to everyone, and she remained a stout prayer warrior to the end. When I arrived as she lay dying, I was unable to rouse her, though I am certain she knew I was there. In the morning, I said morning prayers aloud at her bedside as I had often done. She would always follow along with me silently, unless I pointed out the responses. She loved the Alleluias. I finished morning prayer, and then I said the Divine Mercy Chaplet aloud. She knew all about that. I know she was praying it with me silently, even though she never recovered consciousness. It was as though this was what she had been waiting for, because then she began having trouble breathing. I stood holding her head and said, Mother, BREATHE! I wasn't thinking of bidding her farewell, just as she had not thought of dying. So I didn't say my farewells to her, as I tried to get her to breathe. I felt bad about that afterwards.

But then, after they came and took her body away, I took the dog outside for a while, to calm us both. I sat in a chair as the little dog ran around a bit. We were both sad. I saw a butterfly in the bushes by my Mom's kitchen windows. I said silently, "Mother, if you're here, have that butterfly come around me or something." The butterfly flitted to the next flower, then came and flew a complete circle around me! We all laughed about this later, because that would be my mom's sense of humor too.

Handicapped? People we don't want more of? Absolutely NOT! We will never know the graces brought down to our world by those among us who are handicapped and who suffer. They help uphold the world, as well as their families. We may not know God's reasons for sending them this way, but you can be sure that he had a reason. Perhaps it was only to give us hearts of compassion, and to teach us to serve one another. Love, after all, is the undergirding of all the Commandments.

James H & BrianYes she does. She said that she assumed Roe v Wade would fund medicaid abortions. She voiced no objection to this. Further she counted herself among those who wished to reduce undesirable populations with her use of we.

In the next section she makes of the phrase "some people" to distance herself from those who worried about forced abortions.

She counts herself among those whose desire it was to reduce unwanted populations through funding of medicaid. That is eugenics pure and simple.

I don't mean to sound arrogant or hopeless, there is always hope in Mary and Jesus, but don't you think this country is on the verge of civil war or at the very least a lengthy span of pockets of civil unrest and riots? This administration cannot continue with it's unconstitutional and immoral takeover of our beloved country for too much longer. There will be retaliation. American citizens will wake up and we do love our liberty. God help us.

At Life Fest at the Villa Maria Guadalupe (Sisters of Life Retreat House in CT) Fr Benedict Groeschel reminded us that it took a Civil War to eradicate the evils of slavery.. . Meanwhile, does Justice Ginsburg know that Margaret Sanger agreed with her that Medicaid recipients were to be targeted?Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood wrote:"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon) One problem, Justice Ginsburg; Sanger also targeted immigrants who were not WASPS: Italians, Hispaniics, Slavs, and Jews. Sanger was photographed with KKK members in full regalia and corresponed with the Nazis. It seems the Justice should be more cirmuspect in the company she keeps.

Eugenics is the aim of the elitists. Watch Maafa21 a new film that shows how racism is rooted in abortion. Early civil rights leaders warned African Americans to not allow Planned Parenthood into their neighborhoods because of Black Genocide. All this is documented in the movie - watch a short clip here: www.maafa21.com

I don't mean to sound arrogant, but don't you think this country is on the verge of civil war (or at the very least a lengthy span of pockets of civil unrest and riots) due to DECADES of uncontrolled spending taking care of other people's 'problems'? In case you've missed the news, our economy is sinking due to decades of massive uncontrolled deficit spending, and the collapse of a massive credit bubble.

You DO realize that many unwanted children are more likely to grow up to be criminals who are EXPECTING a free hand-out, and your liberal welfare social programs have only encouraged mothers to have babies out of wedlock?

I work in a CA prison, and you DO realize CA taxpayers spend $90k a year to provide room and board to social misfits, many of whom never knew what a true family is? Many cannot and WILL NOT provide for themselves, because there's absolute economic and cultural DISINCENTIVES to do so (where gangs are a symptom of the problem, serving as an informal second family for many of these disenfranchised).

This administration cannot continue with the MASSIVE deficit spending of prior generations: SOMEONE is going have to pay for all the IOUs and bonds which everyone now suspects are not worth the paper they're printed on. Do I need to mention California has been downgraded as a credit risk, and faces a budget crisis? Higher taxes are an INEVITABILITY.

I agree with the general statement that human beings are NOT an endangered species, and that not ALL humans are unique or 'special' (very few contribute to society), and that some people do NOT deserve to breed (octo-Mom? What special philosophy or morals can she pass on to her EIGHT off-spring?).

While your tolerance and love of humanity is great, when are those of you who are against abortion going to step up to the plate to actually PAY for the needs of all the potential generations you'd demand come to fruition on the planet? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

I didn't think so....

You want ME to pay for your religious values? Sorry, but cost/benefit analysis says abortion is a smart decision, esp. for those who cannot and will not raise their children in a responsible manner to become contributing members of society who can carry their own weight.

You want others to pay for those people who cannot control their genitals, and their wantonness suddenly becomes MY problem? You expect ME to pay for their 'mistakes' by higher taxes?

You're right. These undesirables can't control their genitals. So let's sterilize everyone who is in prison. While we're at it, let's sterilize everyone who is on welfare, because it's from that population where most of the freebee degenerates come from. If we sterilize criminals and the poor, that should take care of all of our societal problems, right. And California will magically have all the money in the world to enact its loony-tunes ideas.(/snark)

Guess what, anon? An end to abortion won't occur before the re-emphasis on the family, which encompasses sexual propriety as well as dignity for the real differences between men and women. Most readers of this blog do want an end to legal abortion, true. However, we also want an end to all abortion, legal and illegal, and know that this won't occur by judicial or legislative fiat but only by a real shift in society. Thus, we lament the misguided hyper-sexual popular culture, ridicule those who promote feelings as superior to the Truth, and work in our own unique way to rebuild society through our families and vocations.

I pray for guards like you who have to work in prisons. I really do. Every day you have to deal with people who may represent the worst of society (some prisoners are really decent people who made a couple of bad decisions; others are heart-hardened lifers whose view of a person's value is limited to what that person can do for them). Please make sure you balance this with some activities that represent the best of humanity- sacred music, charities run by orthodox Catholic communities, etc. Police officers have one of the highest occupational divorce rates, in part because of the stress of the job and the exposure to the brutality of which we are capable. I think prison guards suffer from the same pressures.

Actually, the pro-life people are the ones producing the next generation of tax-payers and instilling in those tax-payers the idea that creating more tax-payers is a good idea. You can tell which ones we are because we're the ones with more than 1.5 children. So, technically, we're the ones producing the ones who will be paying for your Medicaid and goverment retirement plan.

You're welcome.

All that aside, do you really believe every child born into poor circumstances should be aborted?'Cause I have to say, I know folks whose parents were abusive, neglectful, suicidal, alcoholic, abandoning, drug-addicted, on welfare and their kids grew up to be useful, productive citizens, who produced more useful, productive citizens. Incidentally, some of them now work in the justice system and can feel your anger. However, since they come from the very backgrounds that you would have us exterminate, they wouldn't agree with your reasoning.

Whoa...I have to say I don't see how you get that she is advocating reducing populations that we don't want to have too many of through this statement.

She thought that "at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about ..." Nowhere does this say she supported that "concern." That was her perception of the prevailing opinions of the time (not her opinion). This is about what she thought others thought.

Seriously. I'm staunchly pro-life, but pro-lifers really, really decrease their credibility when they respond like this because it is a knee-jerk reaction that shows either you didn't read what she said or you couldn't comprehend the words...